In Québec, Christian liberalism becomes the religious authority

Author

Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University

Disclosure statement

Hannah Dick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Québec government is proposing a secularism law to prohibit any new public servants in a position of authority — including teachers, lawyers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.

The bill incorporates the language of the law from last year’s Bill 62, which prohibits people from wearing face coverings when they receive government services — including health care and day care services and using public transit.

Bill 21, An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, follows laws previously put forth by Québec’s governments — the Liberal Party in 2010 and 2017 and the Parti Québécois in 2013. But parts of these law were suspended after court challenges.

This time, the provincial government invoked the “notwithstanding clause” to ensure it holds up against constitutional scrutiny. The clause allows provincial or federal authorities to override sections of Canada’s Charter of Rights.

Christian culture as the norm

In my research at Carleton University, I have been tracking what I call “Christian liberalism.” I look at the role of religion within the liberal democratic state — and how Christian frameworks, norms and values are embedded into the history of law and public policy in the United States and Canada.

At first glance, the strict secularism (or laïcité) of Bill 21 appears intolerant of religion in all its public forms. But the neutral and secular language of the bill presumes an invisible Christian default when outlining the rules around public expressions of religiosity.

Quebec Premier Francois Legault last week as his government voted on Bill 21. The crucifix behind him would likely disappear if the legislation is passed.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot

For example, the Charter of Values put forth by the Parti Québécois in 2013 proposed banning “conspicuous” religious symbols from the public service sector. But it drew a line between “subtle” religious expressions (like a crucifix necklace) and “overt” ones (like the Islamic headscarf).

The language of conspicuousness reveals that what is determined to be permissible religious expression is a “familiar” and historically embedded Christian understanding.

Liberal tolerance

The western liberal notion of “tolerance” comes from the 17th-century English philosopher John Locke, who considered religious pluralism beneficial to a healthy democracy. Locke’s ideas, grounded in Christian moral reasoning, became the basis for religious freedom protections embedded in liberal democratic constitutions.

In A Letter Concerning Toleration published in 1689, Locke argued that the state should stay out of the business of regulating religious expressions. He advocated for the inclusion of religion in public, so long as it did not contradict state laws. He extended religious tolerance to Christian churches, and also Pagans, Muslims and Jewish people.

But Locke’s understanding of tolerance was rooted in Christian logic and informed by his Calvinist upbringing. He held to the idea of “the true religion” and did not believe atheists should receive the same tolerance.

Religious and cultural heritage

The proposed religious symbols bans make special exemptions for expressions that affirm “elements of Québec’s cultural heritage, in particular, its religious cultural heritage.” This wording allows Catholic symbols, like the crucifix hanging in the National Assembly, to remain. Although the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government has agreed to move the crucifix, Bill 21 retains this language of exemption.

By putting forward this proposed law, the CAQ positions the state as arbiters of religious authority. They determine which symbols are interpreted as “religious” — and therefore in violation of the law — and which are merely “cultural” expressions of Catholic heritage.

In this way, Christianity remains the invisible cultural default. Unless that default is made visible, Canadian laws will not be able to get beyond the condescending premise of tolerance and move towards genuine inclusion.